Democrats Frantically BACKTRACK After SCOTUS Rules Against Voting Deadline, Mail Votes Get REJECTED.
The big push is over and Democrats are realizing they face a higher than normal rejection rate and the courts have ruled against them.Democrats made the biggest push for mail in ballots but now its over. The Supreme Court has ruled that mail in ballots received after election day will not be counted causing Democrats to frantically backtrack and tell people to vote in person and drop off ballots in person.At the same time as many have been warning Democrats are getting hit by high rejection rates that could swing many states for Trump by half a point or more.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Democrats were adamant about universal mail-in voting.
Nancy Pelosi was trying to push it through in this bill, the HEROES Act.
Donald Trump said we're not going to have any of that.
Universal mail-in voting is bad.
Some states, like New Jersey, the state where I live, enacted an executive order for the governor mandating mail-in voting.
And this backfired and the backfire is going from bad to worse.
Not only is all of the old data saying the margin of failure for mail-in ballots is very high, they're also saying in this current cycle, the current data we have, it's Very high.
And now the Democrats have lost a Supreme Court challenge.
Or I should say, the Supreme Court has issued a ruling.
If ballots are not received by Election Day in Wisconsin, they will not count.
And now Democrats are frantically trying to tell everybody, no, no, no, don't mail it in!
Don't mail your mail-in ballot!
Physically bring your mail-in ballot to the polling location or dropbox, because it might not make it on time, or it may get, unfortunately, discarded.
Now, look, whether or not left or right's going to win, I want everyone's vote to be counted.
But the weird thing we're seeing from all of this is that the Democrats are the ones who demanded it.
And no matter how many times I warned or Trump warned or the media warned a decade ago, it would lead to problems and a major disadvantage.
The Democrats just pushed through saying we have to do it.
I guess it's fair to say they are scared of COVID much more than Republicans are, and maybe the Democrats felt they had no choice.
Well, now it's going to come back to haunt them.
Democrats are supposed to have the mail-in voter advantage, but in key states like Wisconsin and Michigan, Republicans actually have the advantage in mail-in voter requests, which seems to fly in the face of everything we've heard, because it's actually the Republicans who are against it.
Could it be that there's not that many people who want to mail-in vote, or Republicans are the ones who are going to vote by mail-in, and thus, the challenge to the Supreme Court is actually bad for Republicans?
Yeah, it actually might be the case.
But I'll tell you, considering Joe Biden now is apparently a 17-point lead, I mean, the polls are ridiculous, and the latest forecast from The Economist has Donald Trump with a 3% chance to win.
I'll tell you guys, look.
I don't know if Trump's gonna win.
My gut kinda says Trump.
I just don't know.
And I think it would be kind of stupid for me to pretend like I did, or had a strong feeling one way or the other.
The pollsters got everything wrong.
And they did.
It was all wrong.
The scale to which it was wrong is in dispute.
Was it wildly incorrect, or was it only a little bit incorrect while their forecasts were horrifyingly wrong?
But Trump did narrowly win in some key areas.
We do have accusations of voter fraud, news stories from Project Veritas.
It could just be that a whole bunch of people who didn't vote in 2016 come out, overwhelm the ballots, and we end up with Joe Biden 2020.
It's entirely possible.
Or there could be something else in play that people don't see and don't realize which has changed people's votes to Donald Trump.
Like I mentioned several times, you got Johnny Rotten, the punk rock legend.
He voted for Clinton in 2016.
He's voting for Trump now.
I didn't vote in 2016.
I already voted for Trump.
So it remains to be seen.
But assuming the votes come in properly, then the advantage in some key states is Trump.
How could the polling say that Trump is down nearly 20 points when mail-in voter registration for Republicans is above Democrats?
And according to voter data in Florida, Trump has an advantage based on 2016.
They're doing better now for the same time period.
I guess we can only wait and see.
But let me read you the news and we'll see what's going on with the Democrats freaking out as they lose a Supreme Court ruling.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you would like to support my work.
There are many ways you can give.
I've got a P.O.
box if you want to send me some stuff.
But the best thing you can do is share this video.
Just to get the word out, I think there are some stories I'll do where I'm like, this is the craziest story!
You know, yesterday with the Project Veritas thing.
Sometimes I'm like, please share this, it's very important.
Or the Hunter Biden thing.
In this instance, I think this story is very important, but share it if you think it's important and you think I do a good job.
It helps support the channel.
And don't forget to like, subscribe, hit the notification bell.
Let's read from Fox News.
Wisconsin Democrats urge voters to forego mail-in ballots after Supreme Court ruling.
Ballots must be received by Election Day or they will not count.
The party is urging voters who have yet to return their ballots to use secure Dropbox locations or to return them at the county clerk's office rather than relying on the mail as first reported by the New York Times on Tuesday.
About 1.4 million ballots have been returned out of more than 1.7 that were sent, according to the latest state data.
That means that there are more than 360,000 voters who the state is trying to contact about the ruling and updated deadline.
And I'll say this, too.
Democrat or Republican, everybody should hand in their votes in person.
Now, Republicans weren't the ones screaming about getting mail-in voting, so that's why I say Democrats, but everyone should.
I went and brought my ballot in person.
I didn't put it in a mailbox.
I put it in a ballot secure dropbox location.
I think that's the smart play.
A spokesperson for the Wisconsin Democratic Party did not return Fox News' request for comment.
However, on Twitter, the chair of the state's Democratic Party said the group is spreading the word across as many mediums as possible, urging people to mail ballots as soon as possible or to make plans to ensure their votes are counted.
And I agree.
Everybody should have their vote counted.
Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, whatever, Green Party, your vote counts.
It should be done properly.
Unlike other states, Wisconsin does not report the party affiliation of voters who requested mail-in ballots.
However, organizers are likely relying on data from other states, which show more Democrats than Republicans are likely to vote by mail.
The Supreme Court ruled on Monday against an extension of time for counting mail-in ballots.
Democrats in the state had been pushing for allowing ballots that were received within six days of Election Day to be counted, so long as they were postmarked by Election Day.
Republicans had argued against the need for an extension.
Wisconsin is one of several key battleground states in 2020.
In 2016, Trump won by a margin of less than 1%.
I want y'all to think about that.
Less than 1%.
Democrats are getting the message.
Eric Holder.
I showed you this the other day, but I want to bring it up.
It's important context.
It's too late to use the mails.
Given Supreme Court rulings, I urge everyone to now vote in person.
Early vote or use Dropbox.
Protect your health, but don't let the court and the deliberately crippled Postal Service deprive you of your most precious civil right.
Plan your vote.
I don't want to get partisan with it.
Look, Eric, he's right.
Go in person.
Make sure your vote counts.
You want to throw in the crippled post office stuff?
That's fine.
But make sure your vote counts.
Now I want to show you some interesting data here first.
We got national polling average.
We got early voting nationally.
This is NBC News using Target Smart data.
And then I'll show you... I really want to get into this.
Postal voting could put America's Democrats at a disadvantage.
Could?
It is.
And they show us this.
This is from The Economist.
Rejection rates for absentee ballots have fallen since 2016, but are higher for non-whites than whites.
Well, check this out.
First, we can see mail-in ballots requested is 77 million.
And mail-in and early in-person ballots returned.
So this is early plus mail-in.
We can see 37% Republican, 45% Democrat, which should suggest Republicans are going to get a huge boost.
We have not seen all the Republican ballots come in, which means this is the standard Democrat advantage we all expected.
This should bring alarm bells for states where the parties are inverted.
Like I just read to you, Democrats are expected to have the mail-in vote advantage.
Right now they do, nationally.
That makes sense.
But in Wisconsin, they don't.
Party registration requests 42% Republican, 36% Democrat with 22% unaffiliated, and the return rate for early in-person and mail-in is comparable.
That's in-person and mail-in versus mail-in request, so they're not the same numbers.
The point is, Republicans are winning in Wisconsin when Democrats are supposed to have the advantage, but they are screaming in our face, Joe Biden has a 17-point lead over Trump in Wisconsin.
What?
Where COVID is surging and is ahead 7 points in Michigan in a new poll.
He's ahead in Michigan?
Look at this.
Republicans, with mail-in and in-person ballots, are winning by two points.
Look, I know, early votes, it's gonna change a whole lot.
The point is, a projection is being made, you see?
What we're supposed to see, nationally, like we are, is a Democrat advantage, because they requested more mail-in ballots.
And we are seeing that.
It makes sense to us.
In Michigan and Wisconsin, Republicans are winning!
Democrats are supposed to have the advantage, they don't.
That's... That means... And this could be bad for Republicans, mind you.
That means that come election day, there is going to be a massive surge of heavily Republican votes.
So 538 says election day in person will be heavily Republican.
And then he says, that means some of the ballots that might come in after the fact, they're actually likely to lean Republican.
Because Democrats have turned most of their ballots in already.
Not most, but more Democrats have turned in their mail-in ballots than Republicans did.
I think things are going to get particularly spicy.
Now to make sure I'm giving you the full picture, I don't want to pretend like these two states are the only states.
In Pennsylvania, it is apocalyptic.
Something I've mentioned several times.
Early voting in Pennsylvania, by party registration request, is 63% Democrat.
Maybe people in PA do not want to vote by mail and they want to vote in person because they're worried, but I don't think it makes sense to see this massive of a swing for Democrats and not Republicans.
And not only that, but when you include early in-person, Republicans even lower.
It doesn't look good for Donald Trump in that capacity.
Because I'll tell you this, there's no reason Republicans can't be voting in person early.
Now, I will also mention there are various sources that tell us whether, that will say like Democrats usually vote early more than Republicans or vice versa.
And like I read an article, people got mad.
Look, I'm telling you this right now.
All I'm saying is, I read 538.
Maybe Nate Silver is wrong.
Maybe I shouldn't trust the experts.
Maybe they don't know what they're talking about.
But the general idea, we were told, it was Democrats were railing, saying we gotta get mail-in voting, and it was Trump saying, no, don't do it.
Trump was telling people to vote in person.
Fauci and Dr. Burke said it was safe to vote in person.
Stands to reason the Republicans got no problem with voting in person.
Stands to reason Democrats are worried, more so, won't be showing up in person and are more likely to vote by mail.
In which case, key battleground states.
Now, in Florida, it is exactly what you'd expect.
It is a slight Democrat advantage.
Pennsylvania is a really heavy Democrat advantage.
So, Republicans, you better cross your fingers that people are coming out in full swing.
In Pennsylvania, We'll see how things play out.
But let me show you what they're saying over The Economist.
I love this right now. Our model thinks Joe Biden is very likely to beat Donald Trump in the electoral college
This is worse than 538 check this out Chance of winning the electoral college Joe Biden better
than 19 in 20 or 97 percent chance of winning the most votes greater than
99% Donald Trump they say has a 1 in 20 chance of winning or 3%
That is brutal man Look, I'm not gonna pretend to have all the answers.
I don't know.
I really don't know who's gonna win.
In 2016, my gut was telling me that Trump would win.
And I remember that, you remember that viral video, Ann Coulter on Bill Maher, when he was asked, of the Republican nominees, who has the best chance to win?
She goes, Donald Trump.
They all laugh, and she's like, and she called it.
Well, Donald Trump still did narrowly beat Hillary Clinton, and Hillary Clinton was despised by many, many people.
And Joe Biden, not liked a whole lot by a lot of people, but let's be real, man.
Bumbly, fumbly, creepy, sleepy Joe is less hateable than Hillary Clinton.
And if that gets him a fraction of a percentage in certain key states, he's probably going to win.
So maybe these polls are all right right now.
In my gut, in 2016, I thought Trump was going to win, but in my head, I said, there's no way.
Hillary Clinton, she's the establishment machine.
Why would she lose?
And then she did.
It's like, wow, I guess the system does work.
Today we're expecting historical voter turnout.
That may be what Democrats needed.
According to Moody's Analytics before COVID, they said, based on things right now, with the economy going really well, Democrats will narrowly win if they get a historical voter turnout.
Well, since COVID and the economy taking a hit, now they're saying, We don't know what's going to happen.
I mean, a bad economy is bad for Trump.
Whether or not the American people blame Trump for it, I don't know if they will, because Trump still polls very, very well when it comes to the economy.
And people do trust Trump more on the economy than Joe Biden.
But maybe a bunch of people who don't know or care about the economy are going to start lighting up certain areas they weren't before.
And more importantly, the COVID shift from all these people moving around early in the year will change things, and we don't know how.
It's going to upend the map in ways we don't yet understand.
But here's the meat and potatoes here.
Check this out.
Postal voting could put America's Democrats at a disadvantage.
I know I've talked about this a lot, but now we're getting actual data, and it's serious.
North Carolina, decrease in absentee ballot rejection rate 2016-2020 by percentage points.
The decrease, for the most part, is from white voters and other, which I guess includes Asians.
And we can see that, mostly, it is poor people who have a smaller decrease, and Hispanics had the smallest decrease, meaning it's decreased for everybody.
But the rejection rates are still very high, and that's a problem.
They say, by the time COVID-19 took off in America, the presidential primaries were already wrapping up.
However, some later voting states creaked under a historic load of postal ballots.
In primary elections in June, 21% of absentee ballots in New York City were rejected, mainly for hiccups like missing signatures.
Such a rate in the general election would put its legitimacy in doubt.
The final impact of a surge in postal voting will not be known until weeks after the election.
Yet North Carolina, a closely contested state, releases detailed data on ballots as they arrive.
So far, its figures suggest that a tarnished election is unlikely, but that Democrats could be hurt by their disproportionate embrace of voting by mail.
The Tar Heel state has received eight times as many postal votes as it had by this point in 2016.
Despite fears about first-time absentee voters botching their ballots, the share that are rejected has in fact fallen to 1.3 from 2.6 in 2016.
This is probably due in part to campaigns educating supporters on voting by mail, and also to new efforts by the state to process such ballots.
However, these gains have been concentrated among white and rich voters, causing North Carolina's already large racial gap in rejection rates to widen.
In 2016, black voters sent in 10% of postal ballots, but 18% of discarded ones.
This year, those shares are 17% and 42%!
That hurts Democrats who rely on black voters' support.
That's crazy.
The black vote makes up 42% of ballots that are rejected?
I'm not okay with that.
Not at all.
I blame Democrats for this.
More people are going to have their ballots rejected.
More people will be disenfranchised by the actions of the Democrats.
It's a frustrating thing about everything they do is that they think they can control everything, and you can control some things, but in their efforts to increase the vote and help people, it's just backfired.
And now they're actually hurting the black community and stripping away many of their votes.
This data is actually really fascinating.
Estimated share of votes lost due to ballot rejections.
So I guess they're basing this off of North Carolina and then comparing it to other states.
We can see that Republicans, for the most part, Have their share of rejection rates going down while Democrats almost entirely are going up.
Yeah.
White Republicans, rejection rate goes down, Democrat rejection is skyrocketing.
In fact, in Maryland, the estimation is huge, increasing what, .6%?
That's massive.
Partisan difference over voting by mail exacerbate this effect.
In the past, Democrats and Republicans were equally likely to do so.
But polling by YouGov now shows that 51% of likely Democratic voters plan to vote absentee, compared with 32% of Republicans.
Extrapolating North Carolina's patterns nationwide, a model built by Merlin Heidemans of Columbia University finds that 0.7% of ballots intended for Joe Biden, the Democrats' nominee, will be rejected postal votes, versus 0.3% for those cast by Donald Trump.
Amazing.
Donald Trump earns a half point advantage, nearly a half point, in mail-in voting.
Congratulations, Democrats!
A half point can be significant when you realize in some key states, Trump, I think Michigan, Trump won by .2 percent.
Well, congratulations!
You just did half of your vote by mail and gave Donald Trump now a .25 advantage.
It's, you know, it has been a past several years of the Democrats constantly doing things that backfire on them and hurt them.
Now, to be fair, because I try to be, I try to be rational.
The voter turnout for Democrats may surpass that .2 advantage, and maybe that's what they're counting on.
But Republicans are voting in larger numbers, too.
If both sides are coming to this with their full force, the rejection rates are a net detriment to Democrats, and I don't think we can tell if mail-in voting is going to be necessarily a net positive because of COVID, because of early voting.
It's hard to tell.
Maybe it will be.
Look, maybe it will be.
Maybe Democrats are gonna pull in an extra point or two by using mail-in voting.
Like, to be real with y'all, it's really easy to vote by mail.
You know, I pulled up, we looked, well, there are complications for sure, and there's a rejection rate, but I wonder how many people are like, it's so easy, I don't gotta do anything, I can just fill it out, mail it off.
It may backfire on them.
I like the idea of making sure it's easier for everybody to vote.
I like the idea of enfranchising as many people as possible.
I like the idea of people voting and having their representative win, and sometimes we get bad representatives.
But I don't like the idea of Democrats playing fast and loose with the rules of an election.
And now we're going to be dealing with more than just this.
The real issue I think we face is that There are going to be lawsuits across the board, and there already are, and the Supreme Court is ruling.
The rules have been changed.
This is as dirty as it gets.
I'm not having a good time.
We could have just done our election normally, like we always do.
You see, like I mentioned this in an earlier segment, Republicans play by the rules, but they play hardball.
Democrats just change the rules when they're losing.
I want a standard set of rules and I want the best person playing to win.
So if the Republicans are like, here are the rules of the game and we're going to win because we know how to play, well, that's the rules we all agreed to.
You know, Hillary Clinton said Trump didn't legitimately win.
No, it's not fair.
Trump was playing by the same rules as you were, and Trump focused on certain states to win the Electoral College.
Now, Trump supporters have said the only reason Trump lost the popular vote is because he was targeting Electoral College states.
If the name of the game was win the popular vote, Trump would try to win the popular vote.
But it's not.
It's win the Electoral College to become president.
In which case, Trump is going for that.
One of the things I think we risk... Let me show you this.
When we see mail-in ballots requested and mail-in and early in-person ballots returned, one of the interesting points is that California and New York and Illinois are going to be massive democratic, you know, they are massive democratic strongholds.
So we need to remove them from the equation and look at only the battleground states.
You know, planned state by state.
So let's do this.
Let's track by state, but let's take a look at something obvious like California.
Looking at California, we can see that there is a heavy, heavy advantage of 55% for mail-in and in-person ballots returned.
So when we're looking at a national advantage, we need to discount Republican states, Democrat states, and look at the battlegrounds.
That's what's going to be important.
Is Trump, are the Republicans ahead?
Well, I'm not going to do a big breakdown analysis for you, because I don't have that pulled up.
But that's the important point.
A lot of people right now are looking at the national statistics, the national polling, and they're saying, great, but only the electoral college matters.
So I wonder, When we look at states like Wisconsin and Michigan, and we see that they're doing well, and I'll pull up Ohio, okay?
I haven't checked the latest numbers on Ohio, but we'll see what's going on, and we'll see how things are going for the Republicans.
These two states, at least, things are going really well.
Take a look at this!
Ohio is also showing a major advantage for Republicans.
I'm not surprised the Rust Belt states are going for Trump.
Trump's all about the economy and ending these free trade deals and bringing the factories back.
Did he do a good job of it?
I guess that's relative.
I don't know what would happen if he didn't.
So he did a job and he did something and he brought factories back.
So now we got Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio Republican advantage.
Looking pretty apocalyptic, to be completely honest.
I don't think... Look, if the advantage right now in Pennsylvania is this high, and even California is only 55% Republicans, y'all are in serious trouble.
I know, maybe people are saying the Republicans are going to come out in force on... We're only looking at, so far, 1.8 million ballots received.
So we got a lot of people in PA who have not voted yet.
A lot of a lot of people.
So we'll see.
And maybe Trump will swing that state.
But ultimately, Everybody thinks they know, man.
The forecasters all think they know.
I think it's ridiculous.
They don't know.
One of the key things Trump really needs, though, is he needs Florida, for sure.
And it's not looking too great in Florida, but the advantage is only 5%.
It can change, man.
The advantage is only 5%.
Mail-in and early ballots returned exceeds mail-in ballots requested.
So it's gonna be interesting.
It absolutely will be something interesting.
And we can do something else, too.
Let's take a look at Minnesota.
Over in Minnesota, as it loads, we can see that party registration right now, 47% Democrats for mail-in and early in-person ballots.
It's an advantage for Democrats, but it's D plus 17.
We expected to see that with just the mail-in votes, according to FiveThirtyEight.
I believe that was nationwide.
I don't know what it should be for Minnesota, but if we find it comparable, then this is just where Democrats should be for the time being, but it also includes early in-person.
I don't know who you expect to vote more Republican or whatever.
I'll just tell you this.
I look at these key states, and it's early, to be fair, but it looks good for Republicans.
Pennsylvania looks bad.
Florida looks kind of good.
In fact, in Miami, they're closing the gap.
It's looking really, really good for Republicans, though they probably will still lose Miami, of course.
The advantage is shrinking in Florida.
The models all do one thing.
Here's what they do.
They take a look at the polls, and you might see Ohio as, you know, 49% Biden and 48% Trump.
So the model says, that's going to go Biden, therefore we forecast as though Biden wins Ohio.
But then the margin of error kicks in, Trump wins Ohio, and the forecasts are wrong.
The forecasts take all the states, and they say Trump has a 3% chance to win.
Maybe it's true.
Maybe Trump really just has a 3% chance to win.
Or maybe something has changed in how people consume information, where they moved to.
I can only really tell you this.
I think the polls are dead wrong.
Dead, dead wrong.
I think they're wrong because COVID moved everybody around, the riots moved people around, now we don't know who's voting where or what they believe, and they were wrong last time.
Sorry.
We're gonna see how this plays out on election night.
And look, I'll be real with you.
I want Trump to win for a variety of reasons.
Not that I think the guy is perfect.
I kind of roll my eyes a lot of things that Trump is and does.
I don't want Joe Biden to win.
He's a crony establishment player.
If Joe Biden wins, I'm not going to play these stupid games the left plays.
And I'll admit, I think it's a problem.
The left bites, they kick, they scream, they temper tantrum for years when they lose.
And moderates and Republicans are just going to be like, well, you know, we lost, you know, that's the game.
What do you do when they're playing dirty and you keep playing fair?
They claim the Republicans are playing dirty.
And I think a lot of them do.
But I'm not playing dirty.
And I don't think, I think the regular American people aren't either.
And I think a lot of people are getting sick and tired of the temper tantrums.
But I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at youtube.com slash timcastnews at 6 p.m.
So it's my other channel.
Thanks for hanging out.
And I will see you all then.
Yesterday evening, the National Guard was deployed to Philadelphia because the prior night saw mass rioting and looting.
People were ransacking big box stores.
And sure enough, last night, after they brought in the National Guard, there was still more widespread rioting and looting.
In New York City, a car rammed through a row of police officers, which is what we saw in Philadelphia.
In Philly, of course, there was, I believe it was a 56-year-old sergeant, female, who was run over completely, left with a broken leg, and hospitalized.
30 officers were hurt in that riot.
And now it seems like it's getting worse.
According to one reporter, it's as bad as it's been since the height of the George Floyd riots.
And some of these videos coming out of Philly, New York, D.C., this is crazy stuff, man.
And I'll tell you that.
To add insult to injury, you've got the Dodgers winning the World Series in LA and some low-tier rioting and looting.
Apparently there was a big truck being looted by a bunch of people in L.A.
But what we're seeing in L.A., people doing donuts, is not necessarily on par with what we're seeing on the East Coast.
And I gotta say, man, it's getting pretty bad.
We got a tweet thread from Jack Murphy about him being surrounded by Antifa and threatened in his own neighborhood.
There's a video of some Jewish men in Philly being threatened, insulted.
Anti-Semitic slurs are hurled at them as they're pushed and shoved and chased out of this area.
I'm worried, man.
You know, look, a lot of people say this is Donald Trump's America.
That's what the left has been saying.
Trump has said, if you vote for Joe Biden, this is what you're going to get.
And I think it's a fair point to make that this is Trump's America.
But I'll tell you, man, I just think I would rather have Trump at the wheel while this kind of stuff is happening than Joe Biden.
Sleepy, you know, tired, gaff-laden, and inactive.
I just look at Joe Biden and he's like, I'm going to go.
We're calling a lid today.
You know, he's calling a lid.
He's gone.
This is a commercial for Donald Trump.
This is a week before election, a week before the hard election day.
Now, I know we have about 70 million or so people who have already voted.
We'll see how many end up, you know, turning out on election day.
But I can't imagine, you know, Trump is trying so hard to win Pennsylvania.
It seems like these rioters want him to win.
And look, it's not all like Antifa.
It's people who live here who are opportunists who are looting businesses.
They're clearly not actually leftist protesters.
They're showing up with bags and stuffing clothes and stuff in them.
But you do see an Antifa presence, a far-left presence.
And I'll tell you this, Philadelphia is known for its large Antifa base, I suppose.
Admittedly, they're much quieter than we see on the West Coast.
The West Coast, you know, Pacific Northwest is where you really get the Antifa and far-leftist stuff.
But Philly, it's got a decent Antifa and far-leftist presence.
Even some armed leftist militias in these areas.
Well, Donald Trump has been doing everything he can.
He is desperately, and I said this yesterday, I mean like, what I mean by desperately is like, he is going all out, rally after rally after rally in Pennsylvania trying to win.
These people come out, second night of riding in a National Guard deployment, I wouldn't be surprised if, maybe it's too much to say that Philadelphia goes red, because Philadelphia is like 80% Democrats, like some ridiculous number, but I think we're going to see some huge swings in the other direction.
Because you got these union worker guys who are probably upset over the fracking comments, now the riots, their statue of Christopher Columbus being removed.
These people are not going to be happy about this.
And why would they support Joe Biden?
Maybe.
Maybe people just really, really hate Donald Trump that much where they're like, those riots?
That's cool.
Yeah, whatever, man.
As long as we don't get Trump.
Now I can only imagine they're going to be like, Trump, please give us the Portland treatment, deputize these cops, come in, have the feds make the arrests and prosecute.
So I'll give you the quick tidbit on the National Guard because this actually happened before the riots.
Governor Tom Wolf ordered soldiers to the city in anticipation of a second night of violent riots over deadly cop shooting.
For those that aren't familiar, this has to do with a man named Walter Wallace Jr.
who was brandishing a knife and is on video Coming at the cops!
Like, he jumps out from behind a car, and the cops are backing away, and then they shoot him.
They say he was armed with a knife.
It's crazy to me.
How many times I say it, or anyone else says it?
Why are they rioting over this guy?
Oh, the cops shouldn't have killed him.
The cops got called to a domestic violence situation and they got an armed guy who's potentially threatening other people.
I can't stand it, man.
What do we do?
Okay, I'll tell you what.
Here's what I say.
To the cops, stop responding.
Just stop responding.
You get a call saying there's a man brandishing a knife and he's threatening some woman because that's what happened.
Why would the cops respond to that?
If they don't want the police in their city, then the cops should not be there.
It's really this simple.
Look, I understand.
It's not that woman's fault.
The people who called for help wanted the cops to come in and help.
But if you've got widespread rioting and looting, and the Democrats and these DAs or whatever are not stopping it, it's clear that people have spoken.
That's democracy, right?
If they don't want the cops there, why should the cops risk themselves when a guy is threatening someone and the cops say, I want to come there and keep people safe.
Okay.
Well, now you got a guy who's coming at you with a knife, now he's dead, and they're gonna blame you for it.
And they're gonna riot because of what you did, telling you, we don't want you here.
If the locals do want the cops there, then they need to stand up and defend the police.
We got that Gallup poll from a while ago.
It shows overwhelmingly people want the police in their areas, in their neighborhoods.
In fact, many in the black community, there's like 60 some odd percent, want them to spend more time.
No, no, I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
It's 20% want more time spent.
60 think it's adequate.
They're not telling police to leave.
They're overwhelmingly saying, please come.
And some are saying, stay longer!
But if the cops are unwanted, and it's leading to death, and it's making people upset, well then there you go.
If the cops just blew flu, you know, don't show up, then maybe opinion might change, or maybe it- Look, I'll tell you this.
If they're saying the cops are bad, don't have the cops come, and the cops don't come, maybe they're right.
Hey, how about that?
Maybe they're right, the cops don't show up, and then it's rainbows and everyone's holding hands.
Well, then it's good, right?
And maybe they're wrong.
And then these people get seriously hurt because the protesters.
But I tell you this, if you just keep doing things as normal, the riots will just keep happening.
I'm not saying the cops should just give up.
I'm saying we need to arrest rioters.
We need to arrest looters first and foremost.
But we need to do something about this widespread narrative where you can have a dude brandish a weapon at cops and they think it's justified to burn things down because the cops defended themselves.
Then the answer is, I guess, cops don't show up.
Anyway, I'm ranting.
Let's read the news.
Second night of looting breaks out in Philadelphia amid BLM protests over fatal police shooting of Walter Wallace.
Car rams NYPD officers and mother of black men who died fleeing cops in DC is maced.
Jeez.
Looters ransacked stores in Philadelphia for a second night on Tuesday, as Black Lives Matter protesters took to the streets of the city, as well as Washington DC and New York following the deaths of two black men.
Walter Wallace, 27, was killed Monday when Philadelphia police officers fired after he approached them with a knife.
His family had called for an ambulance to get him help with a mental health crisis, not for police intervention, their lawyer said on Tuesday.
You know what?
I respect that.
I respect that.
If they want an ambulance to come because of a mental health crisis, then cops probably shouldn't have showed up.
And I'll tell you what, man.
There have been a lot of circumstances where someone's clearly mentally unwell and the cops show up and it goes bad and this person dies.
So I'll tell you what, it's that simple.
Why did these officers come out to a situation that put their lives at risk and ended up killing a man who was mentally unwell?
Apparently this guy was on medication.
It's a messed up story.
I'm not gonna call for rioting or burn everything down.
I'll simply say this.
We need to do something about this.
I like the idea of social workers.
I do.
And a lot of people are dismissing immediately like, man, could you imagine what would happen if a social worker showed up?
Yeah, social worker might've got stabbed.
Yup.
And therein lies the big problem.
I like the idea of someone who can come out and try and work with someone having a mental health crisis.
But if you've got someone who is young, strapping, I'm not talking about weapon, I'm talking about someone who's got strength, I'm sorry, man.
Paramedics aren't going to want to come to this.
This is the problem, okay?
It's not like there's evil people everywhere who want to burn everything down.
Well, except the rioters, I guess.
I come from a family of... My dad was a firefighter.
And so I've gotten to meet people and speak with them and hear them out.
And I tell you what, man.
You tell an EMT, we want you to go to this potentially hostile situation where a mentally ill person needs an ambulance.
And they're going to be like, no.
No.
Send in the police.
Keep us safe.
And so the cops show up.
You can't just send in a social worker.
So my solution is actually more funding to the police, okay?
Definitely police reform, because I think there's circumstances where cops aren't being held accountable.
But we want a social worker.
And we want police.
Maybe there is an opportunity for less lethal, more options for cops in terms of less lethal defenses.
Tasers don't always work.
I'm not going to pretend all the answers.
I'll tell you this, these cops who come out to these things aren't evil mustache twirling villains or henchmen who just want to end someone's life.
So for them to go out and loot a Walmart, steal TVs, cars are crashing into each other, for a car to ram through NYPD, dude, I'm just sick of it.
And I'll tell you what, man, I will not give in to this.
No, I'm sorry.
Donald Trump needs to win in that capacity.
And it's just, you know, the people say, oh, Trump's a fascist, whatever.
You know what, man?
I'm just, it's absurd conspiracy garbage for the most part.
Trump, in many ways, is no worse than any other president.
In terms of charisma, he's not there.
I'm sorry.
But in terms of him using executive orders and taking this action, get out of here, dude.
Nah, I'm not playing that game.
Trump's got his areas where you can critique.
But I'll tell you what.
Joe Biden in charge during this stuff is no way.
Now, what some people have said is that if Joe Biden gets elected, the Antifa far left will be marginalized.
Yeah, good point, good point.
To be fair, yes.
And Black Lives Matter won't.
And that's what this is.
This is not Antifa.
And the people in Brooklyn, who are not Antifa, were throwing bricks at cars, or rocks at cars, and pepper spraying kids.
Literally, they did it.
Not Antifa.
So, no.
I'm not interested in hearing this.
I don't want Joe Biden to win, because I think it'll get worse.
They say Karen Hilton, 20, died Monday after crashing his car while being chased on a Revell scooter by police and crashed into a car.
Pictures from both cities' Tuesday show continued unrest over the deaths.
Trouble also flared in New York, where a car was filmed driving into a line of cops.
In Brooklyn, storefronts were pictured smashed.
The deaths are just the latest in a string of police killings of black men and women across America in recent months.
I just can't stand that framing.
Because there's police killings of all different people across this country.
And when they say, but it's Tim, it's disproportionately, sure, but you're not, we're talking about a dude who had a knife who was attacking cops, man.
We're not talking about innocent people.
We're not talking about systemic injustice, which I think exists, I think is a problem.
I had a conversation the other night with a leftist about it on the IRL podcast.
I think there are historical disadvantages, and we can resolve these things through class issues, not through race-based issues and racialized riots where people go out making insane demands that won't actually solve the problem.
And then you get cops coming out.
Then you get cops in New York being hit.
I mean, this is crazy.
Images from Philadelphia show stores in the city being looted.
Philadelphia police tweeted, alert, a large crowd of approximately 1,000.
1,000 is looting businesses in the area of Castor and Aramingo.
Avoid the area.
Police later urged residents across the region to stay inside their homes.
The Philadelphia Office of Emergency Management tweeted, The Philadelphia Police Department is requesting that all
residents in the 12, 16, 8, 19, 24, 25, and 26 districts remain indoors except when necessary.
These areas are experiencing widespread demonstrations that have turned violent with looting.
In Washington, D.C.
A woman identified as Hilton's mom was filmed outside the police station in the city Tuesday, telling officers, you know it was wrong.
She later appears to have been maced by officers during the protests.
Other footage from the city shows tear gas being deployed.
DC, Philadelphia, New York.
I don't like this lady.
Got pepper spray?
Come on, man.
I don't like any of this.
What are we supposed to do?
Are we supposed to ignore this?
So the other day I had on, uh, this leftist guy, on the IRL podcast, and his view was, these are not representative of the protests.
Hey man, I like the protests.
I do!
I disagree with their ideology, I disagree with critical race theory and intersectionality and all that stuff, but I like protests.
I like when people are like, yo, we got a problem and we want it fixed and we're gonna go march.
Raise your fist.
Demand action.
Sometimes, it's true, I've seen cops instigate.
I actually absolutely have.
However, These aren't protests.
These need to be acknowledged, called out, and these people need to be arrested.
I'm not talking about some dude who's marching around saying, no justice, no peace.
That's fine by me.
Even if people want to obstruct a roadway, within reason, like don't block an ambulance, I'm okay with civil disobedience.
You get arrested, you calmly go, you get a slap on the wrist charge, you get released, you made your point, and those are the lines we find acceptable.
What we're seeing here is all these cars pulling into a Walmart, smashing through the door, going in, stealing TVs.
The cars are crashing into each other.
You got a video of a small business.
People run in and just start grabbing random stuff.
They don't even know what it is they're grabbing.
It's not a protest.
And then what do they say?
They say, in defense of looting.
I'm sick of it, man.
You know, I got to apologize to all of you right now.
How many videos have I done where you could probably just say, oh look, Tim's saying the same thing about this he said months ago.
That's right.
How many times have I made videos where I'm like, look at the riots, the riots are bad?
Way too many.
Way too many.
I wake up and I see this.
And I tell you what, these people seem to be doing everything in their power to help Donald Trump win this election.
Trump needed this.
Oh, you bet.
Because Trump has been saying, under Joe Biden, you will get lawlessness.
Black Lives Matter, lawlessness.
Antifa, lawlessness.
And for a while, people were seeing it.
Support for Black Lives Matter was tanking.
It's now at a very, very low point.
Support for Black Lives Matter is no longer the majority.
It was for a while.
Now it's just the plurality.
And coming in close second is opposition to Black Lives Matter.
Right now, according to Civics, I believe it's 38% oppose, 48% support.
And so the plurality for sure is support.
Now some people say they don't care, neither support or don't.
And that has to do more with there's some good things, some bad things.
And then there's a small percentage that say, I'm not sure.
But the opposition is growing to this.
And Donald Trump has now got fresh images to put up just before election day.
And he'd be a fool not to.
My fear is that... We've already seen Trump ban critical race theory.
And one of the components of critical race theory, according to at least several scholars, is that whiteness is, you know, property that affords people privileges and all that stuff.
This is the stuff they're teaching.
It results in these kinds of riots.
It results in... There's a TikTok video I saw going viral of this woman saying she doesn't want to have white children.
It's like a young white girl.
And she's like, I don't have white kids.
And I'm like...
I'm the guy who's always talking about how I'm mixed race, and I'm like, I don't care who you have kids with, dude!
That's psychotic to me.
That's what's being born and bred out of this ideology.
And riots.
You see, what happens is, they push this ideology, people then get it ingrained in their heads, and then they go out angry, saying, these cops are evil oppressors, bro!
Somebody had a knife!
What's a cop supposed to do?
Run away?
Fine, I guess.
And let the guy run around rampaging with the knife?
Fine, I guess.
And then, you tell me, after the aftermath, you know what they're gonna say?
Why wouldn't the police do their jobs?
I'm just getting tired of the hypocrisy, the violence, but back to my point.
Trump needed this.
I mean, Trump is looking for his Pennsylvania boost.
If Trump wins Pennsylvania, I mean, he's on a path for victory.
It's a very, very important state for him.
And you got Joe Biden making that ridiculous gaffe saying he's going to end the oil industry.
Now, I'll tell you this straight up.
In my opinion, I'm totally down to end the oil industry.
I said it!
I'm not running for office!
But I think it's fair to say it would be great for us to get to a point where we're not dependent on oil, mostly because we want the most advanced technology in energy development for the time being.
I don't think you ever actually come to a point where you outright end fossil fuels.
It was a stupid thing for Biden to say.
I'm going to transition away from it.
That's also a dumb thing to say.
I mean, I understand the argument.
nuclear energy would be a great option. And we would still need
fossil fuels. So the way I put it is, I don't think you ever
actually come to a point where you you outright end fossil fuels was a stupid thing for Biden to say, I'm going to
transition away from it. That's also a dumb thing to say. I mean, I understand the argument. My position is, well, how
about we just incentivize and subsidize developments towards
high energy return, renewables, notably nuclear energy for one,
and then let the like, what we're trying to do is not say we're going to ban something and destroy the market destroy
your jobs, we're going to say, let's make something a little
bit more competitive, so we can get to a better position.
I'm not a fan of, you know, sitting around using old technologies.
I'm a fan of developing new technologies and improving things.
And I think we've got great developments in nuclear as well as other renewable energies that can make everybody happy.
But you can't just say you're going to end.
You know, you can't be, hey, all those jobs you have in Pennsylvania, they're gone.
I'm going to get rid of this stuff.
See, because Biden had to come out then and be like, oh, no, no, I just mean I'm getting rid of the subsidies.
OK, you know what, dude, look, I'm not going to get into the whole energy debate thing.
I could.
My thing is, you've got way too many people in the state whose lives depend on these jobs.
That's why I'm like, I personally, I'm not going to take those jobs away from people.
Plus, it's been great for the United States.
There are issues.
We'll work them out.
We'll work them out.
And we'll try and get to a transitional period, but maybe with the next generation.
I think all this hysteria is a problem.
But here's what I'm trying to say.
Joe Biden comes out and says that.
And this is just, I mean, wow, bad move.
Because people in Pennsylvania are probably now going like, whoa!
There was an interview I saw, I think it was on CNN, where this local business owner in a fracking town said, if Joe Biden does this, it will destroy our town.
This is what we produce.
And I think people need to realize you really got to play games like civilization.
You really got to play games where you understand basic civics.
If you've got a town, And they're mining, you know, let's just say it's a rock quarry, you know, that's just it, you know.
If you say you're going to ban that, well, the money, that resource is what they trade out to other areas, which allows them to have food and health care and shelter and all of these things.
You get rid of that, and they don't have, they don't have their principles, you know, export, then the rest of the town collapses.
And we're seeing that across the country.
And we will see it in Pennsylvania.
Anyway, I digress.
I don't want to get too much into that.
The point is the riots, the riots.
You now have Eastern Pennsylvania.
Western Pennsylvania is frack town, baby.
So Biden flubbed that one.
Now you got riots breaking out for a second night.
National Guard being deployed in Eastern Pennsylvania.
I think Trump is going to hit Pennsylvania out of the park.
They're saying that Joe Biden's leading in Pennsylvania.
It's possible.
A lot of people, low information voters versus high information voters.
I know I can tell you all about so much having to do with energy return on investment, with Obamagate, with Russiagate, with all this stuff, with the rise of Black Lives Matter.
Regular people don't know this stuff.
That's why the riots are so good for Donald Trump.
Because I could sit here and try to explain Russiagate and Comey and Yates and all that stuff, and people are gonna be like, I got no idea what you're talking about, man.
I'll say, let's talk about healthcare and economics and the job losses.
This is the worst thing in the world for Joe Biden right now.
That's why I think, you know, when it comes to low information versus high information voters, you got a lot of people in Pennsylvania probably don't know, but you show them a video of a cop getting run over in Philadelphia and then say, why won't Joe Biden call out Black Lives Matter?
You can praise the good protests.
I do it every single time.
And say, please stop the violence from the extremists in your group, Black Lives Matter.
Joe Biden won't do it.
Now, Joe Biden's condemned violence.
He has my respect for him doing so.
But he needs to call it Antifa and Black Lives Matter by name.
You have to hold the groups accountable.
I got no problem saying, I've seen NYPD officers get away with breaking the law.
I got no problem saying the same thing about Chicago.
Cops, you gotta hold these people accountable.
That's why I want reforms.
And part of those reforms include, I think cops need better pay.
100% I believe they do.
It is not so simple.
But Joe Biden isn't doing that.
And Trump is.
And I tell you this, man, there's probably a regular person who's going, look, I don't know about none of that Obamagate stuff or... I just... Trump is just so bad for this country and democracy.
And then he watches a video of a cop getting run over.
And then he's like, whoa, we got to get somebody to stop that.
And then you say, the Democrats have done nothing.
For the most part.
To be fair, the governor called in the National Guard.
That's why I opened with that segment, so... It's not completely... It's not like they're doing absolutely nothing.
But I tell you this, man, you see everything that happened throughout this year, and I tell you, Trump is the stronger candidate on this stuff.
It is not Joe Biden.
And I am actually worried about intersectionality, critical race theory, neo-segregationism, and what's happening with these riots, and what's gonna happen if we get a Democrat Senate and presidency, and we might.
And we might.
And I think it's going to be bad times for everybody.
You know, I think we're going to survive.
I think everyone's going to survive.
And I think we've gone through dark times in this country before.
And many people argue certain, you know, there's always, we're always in some kind of dark period.
So, you know, it is what it is.
But, man, I think we're going to see more riots again.
And the crazy thing is, I mean, I didn't even get into it.
I mean, Elijah Schaefer, this reporter, I think he got punched in the mouth.
He's got stitches.
They're saying it's like some reporters say it's worse than they've seen since George
Floyd.
George Floyd.
Imagine if this carries into Election Day, which it probably will.
Trump might landslide Pennsylvania in that case.
I know a lot of people have already cast their votes.
We'll see how it plays out.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m. on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out and I'll see you all then.
As I record this video, big tech CEOs like Jack Dorsey, Mark Zuckerberg and Sundar Pichai
are testifying before the Senate about censorship, and I got to admit, it's a bit of a wonky
situation because Democrats want more censorship, which is draconian and insane, and Republicans,
rightly so, want less.
I want to remind you about a video.
It is a glorious video of great importance of a woman holding a phone very close to her face, screaming, we are losing our democracy!
And then she screams at the top of her lungs.
And then I want to tell you about the projection and the lies and how I see the Democratic Party is destroying democracy in this country.
Let me just make a few very simple points.
I'll read a little bit about what's going on the suppression, but I want to talk about the bigger picture, the Hunter Biden scandal.
The Republicans have done everything by the rules.
It's unfortunate.
They only play by the rules.
And I say that because the Democrats use loopholes and manipulations of the rules.
Conservatives view the Supreme Court right now as, for the most part, constitutionalists and left-wing activists.
And I think it's not entirely, not entirely fair, but it's not unfair, to say the least.
When I look at the Democratic Party and I see the actions they're taking, it is violations of rules and standards to benefit themselves.
Case in point, we had a Democratic senator Telling Mark Zuckerberg, I believe it was Zuckerberg, or the tech CEOs, you must censor the Hunter Biden story.
It should not be allowed.
While the conservatives are like, how dare you censor the Hunter Biden story?
But here's the issue.
The Hunter Biden story is in the rules.
You're allowed to do this.
They change the rules and selectively enforce them to benefit Democrats.
You tell me that if Donald Trump gets elected, we are losing our democracy, but so far the Republicans have only played by the rules to their own detriment.
It is shockingly absurd when I hear people say that Republicans are ruthless and cutthroat and Democrats are just too good-natured.
That's really what they say.
I want you to imagine something.
Imagine you call someone on the phone and say, I don't think you should vote for this person because they did.
And then the phone cuts off and they say, you should not be sharing this information.
Is that what the Democrats think is appropriate?
Yes.
These platforms that we use, Twitter, Facebook, etc.
These are not just places where they get to choose who's allowed to be there.
They're supposed to be open spaces we can all freely move in and out of and communicate with each other.
But imagine if you had an open public space.
Imagine it this way.
It's actually been upheld that you do have a First Amendment right on private property in certain circumstances.
If you are publicly open space, at least this is my understanding going back to Occupy Wall Street, Then the private owner can't set special rules banning you for certain reasons.
The bigger issue here is the infringement upon the commons.
If there was a field with a fence around it and they said, if you agree to our terms, you can come in.
And everybody came in and they threw some people out.
I'd say, well, that's a private lot.
I'm not, I don't think, you know, you should be allowed to do whatever you want on someone's property.
But what happens if that company started buying up more and more land and there no longer was a town hall and the president was in that space?
I'd say, while previously what you were doing qualified with private property protections, you've now infringed upon the commons.
The president is speaking.
I would like to hear him and voice my opinion.
And they say, no.
Well, now we've got a serious infringement of our rights.
But I want to talk to you about democracy.
You see, you've got big tech censoring information that is within the rules, and you've got the media guarding them.
The Wall Street Journal Opinion's Gerard Baker writes, Media watchdogs aren't supposed to guard Biden.
If the Democrats win, will America's free press become an instrument of state propaganda?
Will they become?
Already are, for the most part.
I mean, look, the left says that Fox News is a state propaganda outlet, even though Fox News platforms Democrats.
They don't watch Fox News.
This is what I'm sick and tired of.
I'm sick and tired of them projecting everything.
And they do this really creepy, it's like an Alinsky tactic, accuse your opponent that for what you are actually doing or whatever.
And they do it well.
They say, the Republicans are moving the goalposts.
When Amy Coney Barrett got confirmed, it's because the Republicans have the Senate and the presidency.
It's that simple.
Those are the rules.
So the Democrats have proposed now changing the rules of the Supreme Court because they're mad they lost.
This is them cheating and tearing apart democracy.
When Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg side with leftists agreeing that people should not have access to information, that's them cheating.
Because in the real world, people do have access to information.
They are allowed to read the newspaper.
Imagine if the New York Times printed a bunch of newspapers, but the truck company that manufactures their trucks says, no, no, these are our trucks.
Look, you know most cars run some kind of internal software.
Well, you violated the terms and conditions of that software, so we're going to shut down these trucks.
You would not have access to your information.
I know these analogies are not perfect.
The point is, I can respect the rock-and-the-hard place the tech companies are facing, where the Democrats demand more censorship and the Republicans demand less, but we should be erring on the side of liberty, yet it is the Democrats that are erring on the side of ending our right to know about Hunter Biden, for instance, falsely calling it Russian disinformation.
It's not.
Tony Bobulinski has come out on the record on Tucker Carlson.
They're suspending our rights.
The tech giants are on their side, gladly doing it.
Because the tech giants don't fear the Republicans.
You know why?
Because the Republicans only do things by the rules.
Maybe not only.
Maybe not always.
I'm not a fan of the Republicans.
I don't think they get things done.
And I'm not a fan of their policies.
But I'll tell you this.
Amy Coney Barrett was not them cheating or packing the courts.
It was them winning an election and then saying, we have the power to do it.
We're going to do it.
Now I understand, you could say.
But don't the Democrats, if they get the Senate, have the power to pack the courts?
Sure.
Okay, alright.
Well, we've got, I don't know how much time we have left in this year cycle, but there's a lame duck session coming up.
How about we do this?
Republicans, you currently control the Senate and the presidency.
Why don't you pack the Supreme Court right now?
Add 50 justices and appoint them all at the same time.
And then just do every day for the next two months, confirm, confirm, confirmed.
Is that the point?
No, that would be breaking the system.
If Democrats win the Senate and then they pack the courts, expand the courts, as they say, that's them changing the rules to benefit themselves, eroding our democracy.
Now, of course, I can already hear the collective wails, but Tim, we haven't always had nine justices.
So they argue.
We used to have fewer federal districts, federal circuits, in which case we added justices to match the nine circuits we had at a time.
Now we have 13, and they say we must add four more, just to be fair.
That's a great number, four.
You know why?
Because right now it's a 6-3 conservative majority.
You add four liberals, it's a 7-6 liberal majority.
Isn't that funny how that works?
Well, that's their argument.
At least, some of their argument.
I've seen some conservatives, notably Will Chamberlain, tweeted, If the Democrats want to change a 150-year-old norm, which is to pack the courts, term limits have only been around for 70 years.
Isn't that crazy?
They're people's grandparents.
I think my grandparents are older than term limits for the president.
How about that?
So okay, conservatives then started arguing, how about we get rid of the... I think it's the 22nd amendment?
And allow Trump to be president for as many terms as he wants!
I'm not a fan of that.
I'm okay with presidential term limits.
I like them.
I like term limits, for the most part.
Maybe for the Senate.
Maybe it makes less sense for the House, but maybe the House needs, like, maybe five terms, whatever.
The point is, why are we just gonna sit here and listen to them talk about changing the rules, talk about them acting outside of standards, to empower themselves?
This reminds me of that saying, I mentioned this on the IRL podcast a couple days ago.
It's a meme from 4chan.
That any sufficiently free space will become right-wing, and only with moderation will it be maintained as a left-wing space.
I think it's true.
Don't ask me why.
Maybe it's because of something that Noam Chomsky said.
I don't know if you're familiar with Noam Chomsky, famed leftist and linguist, was asked by someone about Antifa violence.
And he said it was wrong.
He said that when we enter the arena of violence, the most brutal guy wins, and that is not us.
Hence, I am actually in favor of a mixed economy, and I'm actually an independent, left-leaning individual, and there are a bunch of establishment crony politicos that are outraged, oh, you're a trumper!
Yeah, I don't care what you think, dude.
I care about are we playing fair, are the rules standardized, and can we actually solve our problems?
I tell you this, the issue I take with big tech censorship and with the media guarding the Bidens and their cronies in government demanding restrictions on our speech and our movement, is that they are changing the rules to benefit themselves and such, why wouldn't the Republicans then adapt to those rules, bringing us down a path of erosion?
Case in point, the nuclear option.
They made it, Harry Reid, the Democrats, possible to appoint a Supreme Court Justice with only a simple majority.
And Mitch McConnell, though I'm no fan of his, I do not like the man, he said, you will come to regret this day and sooner than you realize.
And then they did, because they thought Hillary Clinton was gonna win, so they could change the rules to cheat to get what they wanted.
It would never come back to haunt them.
And that's all it's done.
The other day, Eric Holder from the Obama administration got censored on Twitter.
A day before that, Jacobin magazine, to be fair, Jacobin has been pro-free speech, but the beloved leftists on the show have not, got censored.
That's what I don't like.
You can scream all day and night.
Do not let the crony establishment, the corporations, and the billionaires control what we are allowed to see and hear.
This hearing with the big tech guys, it's not over, okay?
It's still going on as I'm recording this, but I thought it was important just to address at least of what I've seen so far, and I'll show you some stuff.
So, let me read you the bullet points here.
Republican senators slam Facebook and Twitter for suppression of conservative voices as they quiz Twitter's Jack Dorsey, Google's Sundar Pichai, in wake of Hunter Biden email censorship, but Mark Zuckerberg can't connect.
Okay, Mark was able to connect.
But they mention it's kind of ironic, and it kind of is, like, you know, Mark Zuckerberg, big tech CEO, and he can't get his tech to work.
It's kind of funny.
So, they say, The Senate Subcommittee on Communications and Technology and the Internet summoned Facebook, Google, and Twitter CEOs to Capitol Hill.
The big tech leaders are being faced with questions over how they handle political content, as Republicans claim they censor conservative voices.
They do.
The hearing comes as social media sites blocked a New York Post article revealing details of Hunter Biden's hard drive from circulating.
The CEOs are arguing that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is crucial to free expression on the internet.
Full stop.
It is.
But it must be reformed and clarified so that they stop what they're doing.
I think it's good faith to ban people who misgender.
Define misgender.
They banned, you know, Zuby, the rapper?
He said, OK, dude, to somebody, and they gave him a suspension for it.
That's not good faith.
The measure which protects tech companies from liability over the content posted by their users has come under question as they censor content.
Let me show you something.
Abigail Marone says, Jack Dorsey of Twitter just told Senator Cruz that anyone could now share the New York Post's bombshell stories on Twitter.
Dorsey is lying.
Twitter is still blocking the URL for the New York Post story about the Biden's foreign corruption and China dealings.
Which brings me back to my, who was destroying democracy again?
The people who would tell you you are not allowed to know?
Or the people who are saying, let people share information?
I believe we should defer to the individuals and have a decentralized system with limited powers because I don't want despots to take over.
I think Trump has problems enough, but he's nowhere near as bad as the crony establishment of which Biden is the ranking member.
Sadly for the establishment, I think we have serious problems.
I think we deserve someone better than Trump, but I'll take what we can get for the time being because it's Trump and the Republicans that are fighting against this.
So let me tell you something.
When you come to me, And say the Republicans are dictators because they're using the law as it's written, or the norms as created by Democrats to get Supreme Court justices?
That's your fault!
You did this!
When you've got Republicans saying, I believe individuals have the right to share information, I say, hear, hear.
And when the left says, no they don't, I say, you are incorrect, good sir, and you are despotic and authoritarian.
Now, with that in mind, I'll briefly mention there are many right-wing individuals furious that I would dare platform Vosh, the anti-fascist socialist, on my show.
There's a big difference between, you know, censoring somebody and giving them the place to speak, which is, as far as I can tell, the Antifa argument, so no.
If I'm gonna have a show and wanna have someone on it, I think it's very important people hear what these people have to say.
I had Enrique Tarrio of the Proud Boys on my show, and then I had Vosch, who was substantially smaller in terms of notoriety, and I mean that with no disrespect.
And by all means, you can criticize them both to extreme degrees.
I like to have people on to understand what they think and what their ideas are.
Some of these people are sophists, and they're not telling the truth.
Oh well.
Deplatforming is for somebody else.
I like having conversations.
I like hosting people, even people I disagree with.
But I will say, I think it's very important.
I criticize those that would demand no platforming.
That's what it's called.
It's called no platforming.
No platforming is when they say a school, a university, or a social media platform doesn't have to give them the space to speak.
It's different from deplatforming.
I disagree with no platforming.
I'm in favor of platforming.
And some people said, Tim, will you have the far right arm?
Of course!
I mean, Enrique Tarrio, in my opinion, isn't far-right, because I don't know how you define far-right, but some might say he was.
So I had an anti-fascist guy on.
I'm sick of the duplicitousness, but I will be fair in saying it is overwhelmingly a product of the establishment left.
Just because there are some Trump supporters and conservatives who are mad that I'm platforming people does not mean it is predominantly their problem.
I'm trying to support a principle and not a tribe.
And that means I'm going to have on people that you probably won't like.
And you know what, man?
I think the only reason my show works in the first place, like anything I do, is because I'm not going to be bullied by people into who I can or can't interview.
And that includes Enrique Tarrio of the Proud Boys, which the left was not happy about.
They were shocked.
How dare you!
And I'm seeing all the outrage over Alex Jones.
Oh, man!
All the blue-checky activists are like, how dare you platform Alex Jones, Joe Rogan?
And I'm like, Alex, come on over!
Look, I don't debate people, which means I don't prepare, I don't do a big, I don't pull up a bunch of stuff, I just have conversations.
And that means I'm wrong often, because I'm going to let you in on a secret.
I'm just some dude who turned the camera on and started talking about stuff and reading the news.
I want people, the good ones, I want bad ideas to be crushed.
Which means we need to platform people.
We need them to be able to post to Twitter.
I want the wackos to be on Twitter and Facebook saying all their wacky things.
I'd like to point to a cartoon from Freedom Tunes, you should check out, about Jack Dorsey and censorship.
And this is following the New York Post story.
I think Seamus from Freedom Tunes exemplifies this perfectly.
In his video, it is Jack Dorsey standing guard at a door for a club, and a journalist says, I've got this huge story about Hunter Biden.
He goes, well, we can't just let fake news in, you know, we have to be very strict.
And then at one point, a guy in a straitjacket screaming about the Russians, they're everywhere!
He's like, right this way, sir, and he lets him in.
That's what I'm talking about.
I want to see all of these leftists screaming that they think Russia owns everything.
I want to see Joe Biden on 60 Minutes where he was like, it's it's Russia, man.
My kid's not guilty.
It's Russia.
Because they sound like raving mad lunatics.
There you go!
And sometimes, you might have a leftist who has some good points.
You're like, that's interesting, but I really think the guy's wrong across the board.
Except for these few points.
Good!
Then you know, hey, wait a minute.
That guy actually didn't know what he was talking about.
And maybe people will say that of me.
Good!
If I'm wrong, then people should hear that I am.
Which is why echo chambers are bad.
I'm gonna throw it to Robbie Suave, because he's getting some flack.
I see some conservatives.
are posting about him in this regard.
Robbie says, Ted Cruz suggests that Twitter has a duty to let users circulate the New York Post story.
Brian Schatz suggests Twitter has a duty to prohibit this.
Hard not to have some sympathy for the companies, there is literally no way to avoid infuriating one potential regulator or the other.
He's right.
It's unfortunate because everything I'm saying about they must err on the side of free speech, the left is saying they must err on the side of restrictions.
And they feel the same way.
The issue?
They are wrong.
I'll tell you why they're wrong.
Because we are a country that believes in liberty and individual freedoms.
If they don't like it, well then, that's a problem.
We have always been about individual liberties, and that means the individual has a right to use a platform and share ideas, free of interference.
Like I mentioned early on.
Imagine being on the phone with somebody and you said, I heard this crazy story about Hunter- and then it clicks.
That'd be insane.
What's the difference?
And they would say, well, Verizon has no, you know, their obligation to, like, to let you use their service.
And it's like, Do you realize what would happen if we allowed arbitrary removal from core infrastructure?
These people who are advocating this are anything but leftists, okay?
As much as people don't want to admit it, they're like, you're not a liberal, blah blah blah, okay, just, you know, I don't care what you think.
I believe human beings have a right to the commons.
The other day on the IRL podcast, for instance, Vosch was saying that basically his view of socialism is decommodifying certain things to guarantee basic necessities to people.
I say, interesting.
I understand that.
You know why?
Because I think we need to guarantee basic necessities or access to, like the internet and communication technology.
I don't think you can do it with things that are more expensive and harder to produce.
And I don't think we just guarantee internet to people in a certain capacity.
But I'll tell you one thing.
We have food banks.
Where people can donate, and where some public funding goes to making sure people who go hungry get access.
We have welfare benefits, like EBT, which means if you are hungry, you can get access to these basic necessities.
That exists.
The same is true for the internet.
You can go to a library and use the internet.
I like these things.
I believe we need to make sure they're regulated properly in the sense that if they go bad, you know, like with food stamps, for instance, I... Man, how old was I?
I think I was like 19.
No, no, no, I think I was 20.
I got EBT card.
I got an EBT card.
I had moved to Seattle.
I was burning through my savings trying to find a job.
And I couldn't find one.
And they told me I had to worry about it.
And I got, I think, three months of like, it was like a hundred bucks a month.
And man, did that save me.
And I was desperately trying to find a job.
That's exactly what it's supposed to be.
I love that!
Sometimes people exploit it.
Anyway, my point is...
I don't want big tech companies to strip away our access to the common spaces.
And that includes communications.
If they have now streamlined but also dominated the place where we communicate, then it becomes extremely nightmarish and anti-democratic to allow them to enforce more restrictions.
Which brings me back to my first point.
It is unfortunate for me, in my opinion, that it's the Republicans who are the ones defending our rights and liberties.
And it is the Democrats who are advocating for authoritarian collectivism.
Now, you can argue, I know the left does, but the Democrats are arguing in favor of, you know, pro-choice and, you know, there is a freedom and being free from the coronavirus and things like that.
I have a very different view of freedom.
I am very libertarian, but fairly centrist.
So I'm not a libertarian socialist.
I'm not an ANCAP or anything like that.
But I err on the side of liberty.
It's why I'm pro-choice.
And I know there's a lot of arguments in that regard.
And there's a border argument for libertarians, too.
I'm not a big-out libertarian.
I'm just very much libertarian in many ways.
I want individuals the right to speak, to share, and I'll tell you why, and it's very, very simple.
A command structure is less efficient than a decentralized network in many capacities.
What we have is a mixed economy where we do have both a coordinated effort and an emergent system.
It's quite amazing to do both.
That means if we want to maximize the path towards efficiency, we need some people playing referee, the government, regulations, but most people going about their business and choosing for themselves.
And the government should only be stepping in in very serious times.
Right now, I believe they should because the emergent system where people share ideas, the good ideas, you know, try and rise and the bad ideas fall.
and the economy, essentially happens, is being restricted and controlled more and more, which is inhibiting our
ability to function properly.
This is where the referee comes in and pulls the boxers apart and says,
Back up, back up, back up.
Because we're getting trapped in this system.
Anyway, I try to explain to the best of my abilities.
I don't know what's going to happen with this hearing, but I'll tell you this.
I'm leaning towards nothing, so I don't think anything's going to happen.
You know, I can't remember who it was.
I think it was Amy Klobuchar, and she was like, this is politicizing before an election.
I'm like, well, you know, Amy, you're not wrong.
What was the point of doing this at the last minute?
Because the New York Post thing happened?
Okay, fine, that's fair.
But what are they gonna do about it?
Ted Cruz made excellent points, and he ragged on them, and nothing is going to happen.
So, I fear our democracy is in jeopardy.
I really do.
And I know we're a constitutional republic, I mean our democratic institutions, how we vote for people.
Because the Democrats are in favor of restricting your access to information.
We know that Tony Bobulinski has come out and confirmed all this stuff is real.
And they shut that story down, even right now, with the person coming up and being like, yep, that's me, it's real.
unidentified
Twitter's like, um, no, you can't actually share this.
Next segment's coming up at 4pm over at youtube.com slash timcast.
It is my main channel.
Thanks for hanging out.
And I will see you all then.
Boys, we got ourselves a doozy here.
The latest Project Veritas release is some crazy stuff.
And I gotta admit, it's really hard to go through.
In this release, you got a lady saying she's gonna deliver 5,000 votes for $55,000.
Now, I'm a bit of a critic on the media, be it Project Veritas or anybody else, and so I'm wondering if, you know, when I see this, this lady's like, I want 55 grand, I'll deliver 5,000 votes, if what she's saying is more like, if you hire my marketing team, we likely have the capacity to swing this much in convincing people on their own through legal means, I want to say that, but the issue here is the context.
You see, this lady from Project Veritas, in a video the other day, is basically admitting she's doing illegal things.
In the latest release, maybe she's talking about simple ballot harvesting, which is going to Democrat voters and taking their ballots to make sure they're delivered, which gives you an advantage.
And my understanding, especially according to Veritas, is illegal.
Maybe she's talking about actually manipulating votes, like going to people and telling them who to vote for.
Because we see that in a video clip from Project Veritas the other day.
Now this lady issued a statement claiming that she was actually stinging Veritas, and she knew the whole time.
Something was up with this, so I was tricking them.
And the lady in question?
That's just my aunt!
Which is the weirdest thing ever, because she calls the lady mom, and I brought that up in the video when I covered it, so I don't know, but I'll tell you this.
I know a lot of people got beef with Veritas.
My understanding is Veritas has won every single lawsuit when they've been sued for defamation.
I think they settled one a long time ago, and I'm not entirely sure, but I know that he's won all of the lawsuits recently, or at least so they say.
I'll tell you this.
Project Veritas has staked their credibility on making definitive statements.
This lady She's on camera saying, give me money, I get you votes.
And then when the guy, the Veritas guy is like, 55,000, she goes, shh, don't talk, you're freaking me out, don't say it!
Why?
Because it's illegal!
Even if it was just ballot harvesting.
It's illegal.
Now apparently this lady's a ballot chaser.
So she shows up to old people and she goes, you want to vote for this person, just fill it out, do that, yeah, excellent, do that, you can't do that.
Especially for money.
The other important thing I want to mention before we read into this, It really may be.
The people who hired her don't know she's doing tons of illegal things.
This is true.
I know.
Maybe a lot of people want to think there's a bunch of corrupt politicians behind her.
There might be a guy who says, you do marketing.
In fact, in the Veritas video, the journalist for Veritas calls her a marketing genius.
Maybe these politicians are like, You can help me with marketing?
Like, okay, how much to hire you for marketing?
And that just means putting up flyers and posters and, you know, putting up a table and telling people and all that stuff.
Maybe that's all she's doing.
But this lady is on camera changing someone's vote.
Now again, she says it's my aunt.
Okay, maybe.
She called the lady mom, which is kind of weird, I guess.
I can't tell you for sure.
I can tell you that she basically admits in the article the other day, she's doing illegal stuff.
Look, here's a quote.
She said, what I do picking up those ballots when he was with me, that's illegal.
I could go to jail.
I'm a little apprehensive to tell anybody what I'm effing doing, you know what I'm saying?
And again, once he works with me once, he's gonna say, the journalist says, I guess Trump was right.
She says, about doing stuff illegal?
And he says, yeah.
They all say he was full of S. Oh no, he's not.
It's true.
She's like, I do illegal stuff, she says.
And the guy's like, wow, Trump was right.
She's like, you know it.
So, listen.
I'm only saying this because Look, I'll put it this way.
This story is that crazy.
And I saw this and I'm like, oh man, you better be right about this one because this is nuts.
5,000 votes.
She says that could swing an election.
That could swing Texas.
That to me is, in fact, kind of scary.
That there are people doing things like this and they could swing an election.
Here's the story from Project Veritas.
Ballot chaser Raquel Rodriguez boasts judges, legislators, in my pocket.
I'm getting the Biden vote out, but I mean, I'm not gonna do it for free.
Some Texas Republican secretly working for Democrats.
Now there, I'm just trying to be rational and reasonable, okay?
Maybe she's saying I'm not gonna do it for free, you wanna hire me for marketing, I'll do it.
But again, I gotta stress, she's on camera saying she does illegal stuff.
At the very least, This might not be an overt operation where everything she does is buying votes or doing illegal things, but it does seem like within whatever it is she's doing, she knows she's breaking the law.
Ballot chaser Rodriguez.
She says, I'm against Trump.
I'm with Biden.
I'm with Hager.
That's the truth.
She says, I own State Senator Pete Flores.
Pete in the pocket.
Rodriguez on State Rep Candidate Liz Campos.
You know what I told her?
I respect you.
You're going to own me, okay?
Texas AG Ken Paxton says Project Veritas documentary audio and video recordings cast a shadow of doubt on the integrity of the elections.
James O'Keefe says, if Rodriguez is truly responsible for 7,000 votes delivered in Bexar County so far, it is a stunning example of how fragile our republic has become.
Veritas, I mean, so I have this point of the video pulled up.
The journalist said, we understand the Biden-Hagar, 5,000 votes, $55,000 cash for you.
We understand that.
And she goes, check it out.
Quit saying that.
Yeah, we know the numbers.
You're making me nervous now.
So I think now he's gonna show us the laws.
Here we go, check it out.
Buying votes is illegal under both federal law and Texas law.
Texas law 276010, barring buying votes.
Federal law, barring biting votes.
Barring buying votes.
A lot of people accuse Veritas of deceptive editing.
And I will say, the challenge here is I need to... It's like, it's hard to know for sure.
But I tell you this.
I believe if this was not true, Veritas would not have made the statement.
She's saying straight up $55,000 for 5,000 votes.
As far as I can tell you?
Okay, fine.
Warrants and investigation, right?
Absolutely.
There we go.
Well, it appears there's going to be one.
My favorite thing about this, though, is that when Veritas released the first expose where she's laughing about doing illegal stuff and she's getting all nervous, she made the classic blunder.
A heavily edited video released Tuesday by a conservative activist group purports to show a Republican campaign employee in San Antonio interfering as an elderly woman fills out her absentee ballot in Texas.
In the video released by Project Veritas, the campaign employee also appears to discuss unlawful voter influence tactics including assisting people at the polls.
And also she talks about dropping off ballots at various post offices to move suspicion away from her.
Come on, man.
How much evidence do you need?
The reason I was being very tepid on the ballot harvesting story is this language is less clear than this language.
But with this context of her saying she does illegal stuff, this starts to become more clear.
I think Veritas should have put in some of the older footage in it just so you can show that she's like, I'm doing these things.
Then show her saying it and say, this is what it looks like.
I love this though.
They say in September, researchers at Stanford University concluded a video the group released about U.S.
Because the MyPillow guy tweeted Veritas was going to have a release later in the day?
I kid you not.
How many journalists have embargoed?
It's a normal thing, it's called embargo.
Journalists all the time will reach out to someone and say, here's the story, it's embargoed until 2 p.m.
when we announce.
And then the journalists write their story and get ready, and then at 2 p.m.
hit publish.
That's normal.
So apparently James O'Keefe showed the Mike Lindell guy, like, check this out, we got a big video coming.
And they were like, aha!
He coordinated disinformation!
That's the name of the game, baby.
In Tuesday's video, the group did not provide details about who the woman believes she's speaking with, and included only snippets of what appear to be multiple conversations.
The employee is described as a consultant for Moro Garza, the Republican.
The Republican, huh?
How about that?
In a letter posted to the campaign employee's Facebook page Tuesday afternoon, she said the group approached her saying it represented an anonymous candidate with money looking for help in a future city council race.
I immediately suspected something was wrong with the conversation.
She added, I chose to continue the conversation and play along in order to discover the source and gather my own evidence that I could submit to legal authorities.
You showed someone you breaking the law and then bragging about it?
To get them?
Sorry, I don't believe it.
This all lends itself to the idea that the latest release, of course, is true, and this lady is committing overtly illegal acts and selling votes.
She says she could deliver 7,000 ballots.
She's then on the phone with someone saying, you want 5,000?
It's 55 grand for my team to do this.
And it's for Biden-Hagar votes, she says specifically.
Sounds like what she's doing is overtly illegal, and now they're saying Texas is a toss-up state.
5,000 votes!
That could swing a state.
It could.
You get some key counties that have a few thousand people, you can swing some districts.
That's huge.
And imagine if they gave her more.
Imagine if she did it for more than just this election.
Look, I tell you, man, I'm willing to bet there's more people like her doing more stuff like this, and I'm glad Project Veritas has caught her in the act.
Her little, I-was-trying-to-sting-them ain't gonna fly.
We know what you're doing.
Apparently, Project Veritas paid this lady 500 bucks for a ride-along to learn how she does it.
She just wanted a quick buck.
And I tell you, when you're watching these videos, it really looks like someone who does illegal things trying to pitch to a client.
Like, here's what we can do.
Like, here's what we're doing.
You want this stuff?
Almost like a drug deal.
I don't think it's going to have an impact, though, unfortunately.
I mean, I'm glad that Veritas is doing the work, don't get me wrong, and they should just keep doing this stuff, but you can see how the media is already trying to push back on it.
I'll leave it there.
I've got a couple more segments coming up in a few minutes.
Stick around and I will see you all shortly.
Spotify is defending Alex Jones' appearance on the Joe Rogan Experience.
In a leaked email, an executive said, we are not going to ban specific individuals from being guests on other people's shows.
And this is awesome.
You see, not that long ago, I got a notification.
Somebody sent me an email and they were like, did you see that Joe Rogan removed Alex Jones from his upcoming guest list?
And then there's like articles and archives like, oh no, Joe Rogan's, and then sure enough, Alex Jones comes on the show on Spotify.
A lot of people were worried it was never going to happen.
A lot of people were worried that Joe was now beholden to the leftists of Spotify.
I think there are fair arguments to be made.
I made some of these arguments on the IRL podcast, and basically, it's not so much people pressuring Joe, it's people attacking Spotify, and then Spotify saying, help us out, man, and Joe being like, okay, okay, okay.
But Joe had Alex Jones on, and boy is the left angry.
And you know what?
It's really funny.
Because last night, I had on Vaush.
Many of you might know who he is.
And boy, were many Trump people angry.
Trump people, whatever.
Trump supporters.
They're outraged!
How dare you have this person on your show!
Yeah.
That's called platforming.
I'm going to platform many people.
I'm gonna platform Alex Jones!
I mean, assuming he wants to go on the show.
Let me show you this.
I think this is, yeah, yeah, so check this out.
We see, uh, I said, damn, Alex, come on my show next, because this tweet, blue checks, seething, you love to see it.
Sleeping Giant said, congrats on paying $100 million for the privilege of platforming a man who terrorized Sandy Hook parents, Spotify.
Parents like Nelba MG, with respect, will never forget what he did to them, and you should never be able to forget having done this.
This isn't edgy.
It's disgusting.
John Passantino.
Why is Joe Rogan hosting Alex Jones on his show again?
This anti-vax misinfo is dangerous at any time, but especially so during a pandemic.
Molly Jong Fest, who recently referred to me as Beanie, Okay, thank you.
Joe Rogan should be deeply ashamed of giving a platform to a lunatic anti-vaxxer during a pandemic which can only be gotten out of with a vaccine.
What a effing idiot.
And then we have Alan Sherstall.
Your Spotify subscription fails to compensate musicians but does fund this.
And he links to Nathan Bernard.
And Nathan said, Joe Rogan hosted far-right conspiracy theorist Alex Jones on his podcast today.
They pushed anti-vax conspiracies and broadcasted banned InfoWars videos.
Rogan continuing to platform these far-right sickos is incredibly gross and dangerous.
Joe Rogan says kids are getting polio from taking vaccines after Alex Jones spreads conspiracy that Bill Gates is trafficking vaccines that get 100% of people sick.
Great work hosting this Spotify.
Forgive me if I don't believe any of the context of this.
It's what they do.
They take clips, they pull them out of context, and then they smear people.
And you know what?
I don't care.
I don't care who Joe Rogan chooses to have on his podcast.
I really don't.
They've been complaining about it all day and night, and it's not gonna- I'm not gonna change my opinion on his show.
It's Joe's show.
He can do what he wants, and Spotify is doing the right thing by defending him.
You know, we heard that Spotify employees wanted to put pressure on Joe Rogan.
Well, Spotify is saying, Nah.
Here's what's up.
From BuzzFeed.
In public, Spotify is staying quiet about an appearance by conspiracy theorist Alex Jones yesterday on its flagship podcast, The Joe Rogan Experience, despite banning Jones' own podcast last year.
But in an internal email sent from a top executive, the company is defending the booking.
Horacio Gutierrez, the company's chief legal officer and head of global affairs, wrote to team managers on October 28th about the episode of the Joe Rogan podcast which featured an interview with Jones and podcast host Tim Dillon.
Quote, If a team member has concerns about any piece of content on our platform, you should encourage them to report to Trust and Safety because they are the experts on our team charged with reviewing content, Gutierrez wrote in an email obtained by BuzzFeed News.
However, It's important that they aren't simply flagging a piece of content just because of something they've read online.
It's all too common that things are taken out of context.
Jones has been a guest on the Joe Rogan Experience before, but this was his first since the host struck a $100 million deal with the music and podcast company.
The email, which did not name Jones directly, also outlined talking points that top management should recite if asked about the interview.
Spotify has always been a place for creative expressions, the top bullet point said.
It's important to have diverse voices and points of view on our platform.
We are not going to ban specific individuals from being guests on other people's shows, and as this episode shows, complies with our content policies.
In closing, We appreciate that not all of you will agree with every piece of content on our platform, Gutierrez wrote.
However, we do expect you to help your teams understand our role as a platform and the care we are taking in making decisions.
In August 2018, Spotify was one of four companies that kicked Alex Jones off their platforms, citing policies against hate content.
During his three-hour appearance on October 27th, Jones railed against censorship, repeated falsehoods about the Bidens, and denied climate science.
Jones also spread conspiracies about the coronavirus pandemic and vaccines, falsely saying a polio vaccine caused many recipients to get sick.
Rogan occasionally attempted to challenge Jones, but without much success.
Thus is the nature of Alex Jones.
He is a loud and energized individual, and I think he's bombastic.
I think he's a bit off his rocker, to his own admission.
And I think what Alex Jones does is he finds a little morsel of truth, and then he takes it and he stretches it out to an extreme degree.
So I'd love to host Alex Jones and say exactly that.
You know what?
When he went on the Rogan podcast last time, it was nuts!
It was nuts!
And people were watching, and people were laughing, and they realized, like, wow!
Why do people take this guy so seriously?
Jones helped Donald Trump win, I guess.
Probably the main reason they got rid of him.
I wonder how long I have until they give me the axe.
I just don't care anymore.
I'm so sick of these people.
So you know what?
Listen.
I'm not going to do anything to try to get banned.
I don't want to get banned.
I'm just saying, you know what, man?
You have just made Alex Jones particularly relevant right now with what's happening over this outrage and the outrage from the left over all of this.
Perhaps it warrants a conversation with censorship with someone who went from having a very, very massive platform To actually having a massive platform just limited, in a sense.
I think they made a very serious mistake by banning Alex Jones, because then he created a new website that now has a captive audience that will not get access to other content.
Let me tell you why YouTube is so fantastic.
If you watch me, man do I only rag on Democrats.
How about that?
I know.
But I'll tell you what, it's just that I, whatever it is, my bias, it is, okay?
I don't like Republicans.
I don't know.
I remember when this researcher did this thing, a breakdown of YouTube, and he called me exclusively critical of the left.
Isn't that funny?
And I think it's because I don't relate to Republicans, I've never cared for Republicans, I don't feel threatened by Republicans, I don't live in heavy Republican areas.
I have criticisms with those who are supposed to be helping my area and aren't.
And I grew up in a very Democrat area where the Democrats kind of ripped us off, so my complaint is with Democrats.
That means Republicans tend to like what I say, I guess.
But I do think, you know, I did a poll, most of the people who watch my stuff are actually moderate.
You know, whatever.
That's a good thing, I'm glad.
And you can see that based on the amount of likes and dislikes we got on the Maj Touré episode of the IRL podcast and the Vosh episode of the IRL podcast, they're sitting just around 81 or 82 percent thumbs up.
You know why?
Most of you who are watching are awesome.
And you recognize, first and foremost, I'm not Walter Cronkite.
I'm not Larry King.
I'm not going into these debates with a big list and, like, knowing everything.
I'm having a conversation and trying to keep it real.
Of course, I might push back.
I think I was harder on Vosch than I was on Enrique Tarrio.
I think there are things about the left that they lack information on.
And I think it's worth bringing up.
I did call out Enrique on several things I thought he was wrong about.
But here's what I noticed.
I could have Enrique on and people are like, thanks for doing this.
And there's a certain group of people, about 18-19%, that are happy.
And most people are happy either way.
And then there's about 18-19% that got mad that I hosted people who held contradictory views to them.
It's funny, I'm like, why are you mad at me now because I'm hosting someone else so you can hear what they have to say?
I don't know what to tell you man, listen.
Like Joe Rogan, I'm not going to be bullied into being told who I can or cannot have on my show.
You can complain all day and night, and I'm telling you, man, with respect, if you tell me you don't want to watch it, I absolutely respect your right to do whatever you want.
If, at the end of the day, everything around me burned down, and I was left but a humble man in a van down by the river, and I could use my phone to film a conversation with whoever I wanted to, I would be satisfied filming that conversation, because I got, look, I think this is one thing that separates me, probably from a lot of people on the left.
I don't need all this.
I don't need even clean running water or a shower.
I could sleep.
I could build a shelter in the middle of the woods and be happy.
What do I really need?
I'm a minimalist, man.
I don't need a lot.
And so if people tell me they want me to host certain people or not host certain people, otherwise they won't watch ever again, then my only response is, I'm sorry, you don't want to watch.
I mean, do your thing.
I'll do mine.
Some people are saying, well, maybe now that you're hosting these people we don't like, you're going to get less views.
When I interviewed the Proud Boys before, I got attacked by the left, and things went okay.
And when I hosted, you know, when I interviewed a Brazilian gang member, refugees, drug, refugee drug dealers in Athens on my main channel, yeah, people didn't like it, and I don't care.
I get ragged on all the time by everybody.
I don't care.
Look, I'm not here to... Look, I'm not gonna drag anybody.
If you don't like a person, just say, Tim, I'm not gonna watch your show.
If you host these people, I'll say, sorry to lose you, man.
You know, come back and watch whatever else.
But there are people who, like the leftist hacking Joe Rogan, will say, I am unsubscribing.
How dare you?
Okay, well, dude, I don't tell you, man.
I won't be bullied by anybody.
And the people who aren't bullying me just saying I have distaste for this, I respect your decision.
You don't have to watch any of my stuff.
Nor do I deserve it, if that's the case.
But I'll tell you what I want to do.
I'm going to host people that I think are fun to talk to.
I'm going to have a conversation, sometimes we'll argue.
The left can dance around calling me a moron all day and night.
I don't care.
I am not the world's smartest man.
I am not a master of journalism.
I am not Walter Cronkite or Larry King.
I'm literally a dude sitting in his room who talks to a camera all day to express my feelings and thoughts on the news.
And it's kind of just an addiction of me seeing stories like, whoa, I got to talk about this.
I have so much I want to say about it.
And then people started watching me, and I'm like, this is really cool that people are watching what I have to say.
And it's really weird when people are like, dude, Tim, you're such a big political personality.
And I'm like, listen, bro, I one day... You know what?
When I started, I put a GoPro on the top of my computer monitor, and I pressed play, and I'd record myself talking about stuff for 10 minutes, and it was slow and dry.
And I just kept doing it because there were things I was seeing I wanted to talk about.
And I wanted to work on something.
I wanted to do something.
I was bored.
Jack Murphy, you may know him, he's on the show several times.
I think we're going to have him tonight, actually.
I think we have him tonight, maybe.
He said, you know, how you work so much, Tim, and I was like, dude, I just don't want to be bored.
That's really it.
And I want adventure, and I want excitement, and I want to see crazy people.
So I have people now saying, you're going to have to fall right on your show?
Yes!
Whatever, man.
I don't want to get banned, but I believe I have a right as a journalist and a political commentator and personality to have hard discussions.
That includes the likes of Alex Jones.
That includes the rights of, you know, America First people or whatever.
I'm down to have conversations.
I don't think I'm the smartest person in the world.
You might not like that I'm platforming.
Well, I don't tell you, man.
I get flack from... Look, you're gonna see the left go after Rogan for hosting Alex Jones.
Well, that's ridiculous.
And now I got people ragging on me because I hosted Vosh.
Yeah, well, that's ridiculous too.
Sorry, man.
They're complaining about things Jones said.
People are complaining about what Vosh said.
That's just the way it is.
I'll leave it there.
I got one more segment coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
Ted Cruz with the fire!
Bringing the fire to Jack Dorsey!
Lighting him up!
Woo!
Spicy!
Earlier today, we saw big tech CEOs testifying, and it's kind of funny, it's cathartic watching Ted Cruz call out Jack Dorsey and say, it's not true, you're lying, you're wrong, all those things, but Jack Dorsey, and I'm not trying to be mean to Jack on this one, but he looked like he was just, well, I wanna say stoned, but I don't mean it in a disrespectful way, just more nihilistic.
So what I mean is, Jack Dorsey was just like kind of half glazed over look, long beard like he's not shaven since the last time I talked to him.
And Ted Cruz is like, who the hell elected you to ban this kind of speech in this news?
unidentified
And Jack Dorsey is just like, No, um... No, we don't do that.
Our policy says, you know, and we think it was a mistake, and... He just really was checked out.
And now it seems like Twitter is saying, well, they could just delete it.
Nah, that's you being like, we're in charge still.
I'll tell you what, man, it's funny seeing the leftists defend, just the Democrats and the leftists defend massive multinational billionaires.
It's the weirdest thing to me.
I guess for me, though, I just, I can't stand tribes.
I really don't care for them.
Never did.
Didn't care.
Actually quite contrarian, so, you know, I'm always just like, if you're a hypocrite, you're wrong, I don't care.
That's always been kind of my thing.
Calling out the hypocrites, the liars, and the stealers, and the cheaters, etc.
And right now I see Republicans are calling out big tech and calling for regulation.
It's a good thing.
I should say regulation in a certain sense, because a lot aren't.
A lot of these Republicans are in the pocket of big tech and are just like, well, I don't think we need to do anything hasty.
Shut up.
These people are just giving in to the billionaires.
But the Democrats are totally on board because they're getting what they want.
They're censoring speech they don't like.
And then you get left to saying, but Tim, my private platform.
Dude, y'all were just like a few years ago complaining about major corporations.
Don't come at me with defending my private platform.
I'm not interested.
I am about regulating corporations that are violating the rights of individuals.
And I don't care who those individuals are.
So my shout-out to Jacobin Magazine, because they defended free speech.
Jimmy Dore, leftist, defends free speech.
Absolutely.
And anybody else, any other progressive, conservative, otherwise.
You see, you really get to see who's in favor of principles.
Like, do we respect free speech, or are they just saying it because they want power?
And here's what I see from the tribalists.
Right now you've got people on the right totally for free speech and saying, we've got to do something about what's going on with these big tech platforms.
It's not fair.
And they're correct.
It is not fair.
And the Democrats are saying, yeah, well, they're only saying that because they want power.
And I'm like, and you're only saying that because you have power.
And when it flips, you're going to come to me and say, but Tim, aren't you for free speech?
Yeah.
I heard Facebook was suppressing ThinkProgress recently.
They shouldn't be doing it!
Dude, is it so hard?
Too many people live in this tribal reality.
And that's why I think, to throw it back to Ted Cruz, I can respect it, his outrage and him calling out Jack Dorsey, but it's performative, man.
It's performative.
What are you going to do?
What can you do?
Probably nothing.
We've got Section 230.
We need the House.
We need the Republicans.
There's no alignment.
Nothing will get done.
Nothing's gonna get done.
And I'll even say this.
I was criticizing AOC.
Because what did she do?
She, like, named post offices.
And in my conversation with Vaush the other day, he's like, to be fair, like, not a whole lot has gotten done.
I'm like, that's actually a fair point.
Okay, I try to be fair.
Nobody's agreeing with each other on anything, okay?
So the House is putting bills forward, and also, to be fair, in the other direction, AOC could still be proposing and drafting bills.
Instead, we get the Green New Deal, which is a mishmash of garbage, which makes no sense.
But a lot of the things coming from the House, from the Democrats, are going to the Senate.
Mitch McConnell's like, no, kicking it back, and nothing's getting done.
That's why everybody hates Congress.
That's why I'm like, just get rid of all of them.
But I think we have a very serious problem with tribalism right now.
And that's why, you know, a lot of people are probably cheering on Ted Cruz lighting a fire on Jack Dorsey.
Figuratively.
You know?
Because it feels good!
But I'm just looking for solutions, man.
I'm looking for ways we can guarantee everyone the right to speech.
Be that left, right, up, down, whatever.
And I'm not convinced it's gonna get done.
And I think, to be completely honest, Democrats and Republicans as a whole, like the bulk, are totally okay with restrictions on speech.
I think Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, Matt Gaetz, etc.
There's many Republicans who are like, this is bad, we should do something about it.
I think most of them are probably like, I don't care.
I don't know.
Whatever.
I said it before.
I'll say it again.
I think I said it in 2018.
Republicans are too stupid to realize this will destroy them, and they will never win again.
Now, Ted Cruz is not.
Ted Cruz is smart.
He understands this.
He's been paying attention.
And there are many other Republicans who have.
But they're actively fighting against Democrats who are calling for more censorship.
I'll just give you the bullet points on this one.
Who the hell elected you?
Ted Cruz tears into Twitter's Jack Dorsey for still censoring tweets about Hunter Biden's emails as Republicans slam him, Facebook, and Google for bias, and he admits conservatives have lost our trust.
I'll tell you what the problem is, Jack.
You need to hire a conservative who can tell you why your rules are broken.
It's kind of amazing to me.
I'm not a conservative.
Never been a conservative.
Probably have some views that align with conservatives, for sure.
And I told Jack Dorsey his rules were biased years ago.
Because he didn't understand it, that when he has a rule on misgendering, that doesn't make sense to a conservative.
They don't agree with that idea of misgendering.
And then he was like, oh, you have a rule that only fits the leftist view.
He's done nothing.
He does this here and he's like, here's what we have to do better.
And he's done nothing.
So I don't think anything's going to change.
And I think, man, I think this just means that it's going to get worse.
Free speech is going to get curtailed.
Big tech is slowly taking over.
Jack Dorsey said it when I was on the show with Rogan.
They're beholden to a global audience.
And so they're trying to make a one-size-fits-all policy for everyone, which you can't do.
The rules for America gotta be rules for America.
They say the Senate Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet summoned Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg.
I talked about this earlier.
The big tech leaders were questioned over how they handle political content as Republicans claim they censor conservative voices.
They literally censored the New York Post story because it made Hunter Biden and Joe Biden look bad.
So don't tell me it's a claim.
The hearing comes as social media sites blocked a New York Post article revealing details of Hunter Biden's hard drive, prompting fury from Republicans and Donald Trump.
Ted Cruz, a Republican from Texas, tore into Dorsey accusing him of wielding power with- without- with accountability?
You mean without accountability?
Mr. Dorsey, who the hell elected you and put you in charge of what the media are allowed to report on—report—and what the American people are allowed to hear?
And why do you persist in behaving as a Democratic super PAC—ooh, spicy—silencing views to the contrary of your political beliefs?
Cruz shouted as he joined in a remotely hearing.
Okay, listen.
Jack Dorsey denied this.
unidentified
And he's like, we don't censor people based on political views.
I think one of the funniest things to come out of my episode, the podcast show, with Vosch was that Vosch called me far-right.
I think it's hilarious, because I'm actually a center-left independent.
But because I don't like Democrats, far-right!
Even though I'm not a staunch nationalist, I'm actually very much in favor of international cooperation, and to varying degrees, certain trade deals and fair trade and things like that.
Pro-choice, pro-progressive tax, pro-immigration.
Far-right!
Yeah.
Perhaps it's because y'all are authoritarians.
The Democrats have become extremely authoritarian.
While Donald Trump certainly has some authoritarian tendencies.
Sure, fine.
He's acting within the confines of the laws with executive orders, etc.
And we can criticize him when he says things, and I have.
I remember when Donald Trump recently said, the cops came in, you know, saw the guy, they knew who he was, they didn't want to arrest him.
Fifteen minutes, it was over.
About the guy, Michael Reynolds.
Implying it was retribution.
Because Trump said retribution before.
I criticize that.
I criticize it now.
That's horrifying.
We can't allow that.
But I tell you what, man.
You got cronies in big tech Trump fighting against.
That's good.
You've got a corrupt cultural establishment pushing a fringe, freakish ideology.
These are bad things.
Gotta be shut down.
Sorry.
I just don't think Donald Trump is a fascist.
I don't think he's gonna stay in for 50 billion years.
I don't think he's gonna have three terms.
I think the left has gone nuts.
And so for me it really just becomes a I'm focused on what I think is the bigger issue, and that's the Democrats and their cultural problems and big tech millionaires.
It's not the one guy who happened to win the presidency who everybody hates and who gets screamed at all day and night.
You can't go a day without hearing someone say that the orange man is bad, right?
And thus, I kind of feel like y'all got that in check.
Now the problem is the unaccountable.
The billionaires, the wealthy, the Democrats, big tech, not getting taken care of.
